Don't waste your time. Reading those arguments from that site is equivalent to listening to Cindy Sheehan explain the difference between Chavez and Bush.
As a "for instance", "Claim CI110: Design can be recognized by the following filter:" is supposedly refuted with an argument beginning with The filter is useless in practice because the probabilities it asks for can never be known. That statement argues against a perfectly valid criteria, namely, If an event E has high probability, accept regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step. I simply reject the general assertion "The filter is useless in practice because the probabilities it asks for can never be known."
It is quite rational to ascertain that this
is design and not chance or regularity.